I will have to check back over my notes but I don't remember it being 6,000. The figures I was given were a total and then the percentage of them that would have been 'taken on board' due to multiples etc.

On 24/02/2014 access t CliffCare wrote:>I will have to check back over my notes but I don't remember it being 6,000.>The figures I was given were a total and then the percentage of them that>would have been 'taken on board' due to multiples etc.

The gov logic is still flawed, if they regard 'multiples' as any less valid.
I.e. I wonder if they would duck a second time if I fired more than one round at them?
Heh, heh, heh.

As an aside, I think passive resistance / civil disobedience has a place in society dealings...
~> Wouldn't it be grand if the first person who gets pinged for wilderness camping without paying the new prescribed fee, caused mass demonstrations at the court hearing, bringing traffic to a halt in the vicinity etc!

On 24/02/2014 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:>On 24/02/2014 access t CliffCare wrote:>>I will have to check back over my notes but I don't remember it being>6,000.>>The figures I was given were a total and then the percentage of them>that>>would have been 'taken on board' due to multiples etc.>>The gov logic is still flawed, if they regard 'multiples' as any less>valid.

>I.e. I wonder if they would duck a second time if I fired more than one>round at them?>Heh, heh, heh.>>As an aside, I think passive resistance / civil disobedience has a place>in society dealings...>~> Wouldn't it be grand if the first person who gets pinged for wilderness>camping without paying the new prescribed fee, caused mass demonstrations>at the court hearing, bringing traffic to a halt in the vicinity etc!

Totally agree Rod. Just explaining the numbers and how they deal with them.

On 24/02/2014 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:>On 24/02/2014 access t CliffCare wrote:>>I will have to check back over my notes but I don't remember it being>6,000.>>The figures I was given were a total and then the percentage of them>that>>would have been 'taken on board' due to multiples etc.>>The gov logic is still flawed, if they regard 'multiples' as any less>valid.>I.e. I wonder if they would duck a second time if I fired more than one>round at them?>Heh, heh, heh.>>As an aside, I think passive resistance / civil disobedience has a place>in society dealings...>~> Wouldn't it be grand if the first person who gets pinged for wilderness>camping without paying the new prescribed fee, caused mass demonstrations>at the court hearing, bringing traffic to a halt in the vicinity etc!
Perhaps we could have a camp-in at Buandik and when they ask for the camp fees, ask where the flush toilets, hot showers and drinking water are.

Passive resistance and protest has its place. The problem is those who are affected are diverse and varied (both political and geographically). The are probably more BCF (boatin' campin' and fishun' ) types affected than climbers.

Getting a decent protest together at the Pines would be easy, but that is one of the few places which aren't unfairly hit by these changes. (Honestly $5pp is not too bad.)

Also the bulk of the climbing community seems to be weekend warriors. The amount of unwashed dirt bags with time to protest seem fewer and fewer. At the end of the day most people's protest won't go much further than this forum. (I include myself in this category.)

"Congratulations on your highly considered consultation of the community on the camping fee structure. I really appreciate when I do not even receive an acknowledgement of my submission and your outcome appears to ignore the view of the many submissions I know to have been sent. I am curious as to how much community support you found for this proposal from your process. I appreciate that it will be highly successful for the rehabilitation of the Grampians after the latest fires however, as many people will be deterred from going by the exorbitant cost of camping. That is certainly a great strategy to reduce the impact of people.

Of course, these fee do not have to effect me greatly as I live close enough to the Grampians to just drive home. And in preference to paying $50 for a campsite for 2, I will just drive home. And if I didnít, I would pay for roofed accommodation such as Mt Zero Log Cabins for $60 in preference. I am not against camping fees per se, but these fees are unreasonable and will only lead to further fee avoidance. Maximising revenue should really be about setting fees that people will recognise as good value, feel is fairly shared across all user groups and will thus happily pay. Good luck in recouping the cost of camping that you are concerned about with the decrease in business and increase in policing costs."

On 25/02/2014 Wendy wrote:>Should I send them a grumpy email?>>"Congratulations on your highly considered consultation of the community>on the camping fee structure. I really appreciate when I do not even receive>an acknowledgement of my submission and your outcome appears to ignore>the view of the many submissions I know to have been sent. I am curious>as to how much community support you found for this proposal from your>process. I appreciate that it will be highly successful for the rehabilitation>of the Grampians after the latest fires however, as many people will be>deterred from going by the exorbitant cost of camping. That is certainly>a great strategy to reduce the impact of people.>>Of course, these fee do not have to effect me greatly as I live close>enough to the Grampians to just drive home. And in preference to paying>$50 for a campsite for 2, I will just drive home. And if I didnít, I would>pay for roofed accommodation such as Mt Zero Log Cabins for $60 in preference.> I am not against camping fees per se, but these fees are unreasonable>and will only lead to further fee avoidance. Maximising revenue should>really be about setting fees that people will recognise as good value,>feel is fairly shared across all user groups and will thus happily pay.>Good luck in recouping the cost of camping that you are concerned about>with the decrease in business and increase in policing costs."

Well put Wendy. Send it in anyway and see if you get a reply. Unfortunately I think we all wasted our time with our submissions as they clearly new what they were going to do from the start and the consultation was a farce.

A typology of eight levels of participation may help in analysis of this confused issue. For illustrative purposes the eight types are arranged in a ladder pattern with each rung corresponding to the extent of citizens' power in determining the end product3 (see Fig. 8).

The bottom rungs of the ladder are (1) Manipulation and (2) Therapy. These two rungs describe levels of 'non-participation' that have been contrived by some to substitute for genuine participation.

Their real objective is not to enable people to participate in planning or conducting programmes, but to enable powerholders to 'educate' or 'cure' the participants. Rungs 3 and 4 progress to levels of 'tokenism' that allow the have-nots to hear and to have a voice: (3) Informing and (4) Consultation. When they are proffered by powerholders as the total extent of participation, citizens may indeed hear and be heard. But under these conditions they lack the power to insure that their views will be heeded by the powerful. When participation is restricted to these levels, there is no follow through, no 'muscle', hence no assurance of changing the status quo. Rung (5) Placation, is simply a higher level tokenism because the ground rules allow have-nots to advise, but retain for the power-holders the continued right to decide,

Further up the ladder are levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decision-making clout. Citizens can enter into a (6) Partnership that enables them to negotiate and engage in trade-offs with traditional powerholders. At the topmost rungs, (7)

Delegated Power and (8) Citizen Control, have-not citizens obtain the majority of decision-making seats, or full managerial power.

Source: Arnstein, Sherry. R. 1971. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute. April 1971.

On 25/02/2014 salty crag wrote:>Well put Wendy. Send it in anyway and see if you get a reply. Unfortunately>I think we all wasted our time with our submissions as they clearly new>what they were going to do from the start and the consultation was a farce.

The cynic in me figured that the "consultation" was a farce. The document and the proposal was written like it was a done deal. If they were serious about consultation then it would have occurred BEFORE the completion of a detailed document. Instead they had already finished their detail proposal and were simply going through the required motions.

I wouldn't say wasted our time it is better to have tried and fail than not even tried. If there is further controversy they can't simply say they consulted and had strong support for their proposal.

My cynicism was further confirmed when the proposed changes in per person fees had already been implemented at the two campgrounds I use (Arapiles and Catani). For some reason I'm still hopeful that they won't implement the 6 person charge at Catani given the huge impact it will have on families using the place, but I think it will go ahead, especially since even after a 30% fee hike the place was still booked out over the entire Christmas period. Obviously the market was able to bear that, why not whack another 50% on top? Hell, why not keep going until they start getting empty sites...

On 25/02/2014 ajfclark wrote:>My cynicism was further confirmed when the proposed changes in per person>fees had already been implemented at the two campgrounds I use (Arapiles>and Catani). For some reason I'm still hopeful that they won't implement>the 6 person charge at Catani given the huge impact it will have on families>using the place, but I think it will go ahead, especially since even after>a 30% fee hike the place was still booked out over the entire Christmas>period. Obviously the market was able to bear that, why not whack another>50% on top? Hell, why not keep going until they start getting empty sites...

That's the nature of corporations unfortunately, the only way they can work out what the market will truly bear is by tracking demand. Once demand begins to fall off they'll know what the "price" is.

I'm mildy surprised they haven't increased the Wilson's Prom camping prices more, they definitely cost more to run than bush camping. Then again that'd probably get more of the mainstream family types up in arms and more pepole would notice / protest as opposed to us fringe outdoors groups.

This sort of process is almost guaranteed to make you cynical, if you weren't already. I had no expectation that my input would achieve anything other than I can say that I at least tried.
I confidently predict that DPI will now pour vast sums of money into a poorly-designed, poorly performing booking system which will be implemented 2 years late, 200% over-budget and using 10 year old technology.

On 25/02/2014 kieranl wrote:>This sort of process is almost guaranteed to make you cynical, if you weren't>already. I had no expectation that my input would achieve anything other>than I can say that I at least tried.>I confidently predict that DPI will now pour vast sums of money into a>poorly-designed, poorly performing booking system which will be implemented>2 years late, 200% over-budget and using 10 year old technology.

On 25/02/2014 kieranl wrote:>This sort of process is almost guaranteed to make you cynical, if you weren't>already. I had no expectation that my input would achieve anything other>than I can say that I at least tried.>I confidently predict that DPI will now pour vast sums of money into a>poorly-designed, poorly performing booking system which will be implemented>2 years late, 200% over-budget and using 10 year old technology.

I'm not going to bet against that.

I hear the DPI is aiming to hire experienced staff for this project. Former Myki staff will be fast tracked into the program.

l don't think it's the end of the world. We've had to pay to camp in the Grampians for over a decade Hands up anyone who's paid lately.
They can't enforce it without hiring extra rangers, and I can't see that happening,